1980/04/1580-502
City Hal, l~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
The City Council of the City of Anaheim met in regular session.
PRESENT:
ABSENT:
PRESENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CITY MANAGER: William O. Talley
CITY ATTORNEY: William P. Hopkins
CITY CLERK: Linda D. Roberts
PUBLIC WORKS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Thornton E. Piersall
PUBLIC UTILITIES GENERAL MANAGER: Gordon W. Hoyt
PURCHASING AGENT: Richard Jefferis
PLANNING DIRECTOR: Ronald L. Thompson
CITY ENGINEER: William G. Devitt
ELECTRICAL SUPERINTENDENT: George H. Edwards
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ZONING: Annika Santalahti
Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order and welcomed those in
attendance to the Council meeting.
INVOCATION: Chaplain John Devan, Anaheim Memorial Hospital, gave the
Invocation.
FLAG SALUTE: Councilman Don R. Roth led the assembly in the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
119: PROCLAMATIONS: The following proclamations were issued by Mayor Seymour
and authorized by the City Council:
Second Annual Mayor's Prayer Breakfast, May 7, 1980
"Cultural Arts Month" - May 1980
"National Library Week in Anaheim" - April 13-19, 1980
"Nursing Home Week in Anaheim" - May 11-17, 1980
Mr. Kermit Sutherland accepted the Mayor's Prayer Breakfast proclamation;. Mrs.
Suzanne Chapman, President of the Anaheim Arts Council, the Cultural Art Month
proclamation; and Mrs. Elizabeth Schultz, Vice Chairman of the Library Board,
the National Library Week proclamation.
119: RESOLUTION OF CONGRATULATIONS: A resolution of congratulations was unan-
imously adopted by the City Council and presented to Mr. Terry Belmont, President
of the Martin Luther Hospital Medical Center on the occasion of the Hospital's
20th Anniversary and on their April 18th dedication of the Tincher-Lewis Health
Education Center.
i27: GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 8, 1980 - CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATION:
Pursuant to Resolution No. 80R-8, City Clerk Linda D. Roberts submitted the
following Certificate of Canvass of Returns of the General Municipal Election
held in the City of Anaheim April 8, 1980, conveying the number of votes given
at each precinct, and the number of votes given in the City to persons voted for,
and the respective offices for which said persons were candidates.
80-503
CITY CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF CANVASS
I, Linda D. Roberts, City Clerk of the City of Anaheim, County of Orange, State
of California, duly authorized by Resolution No. 80R-8, adopted by the City on
the 2nd day of January, 1980, do hereby certify ~hat I have canvassed the returns
of the regular General Municipal Election held in said City on the 8th day of
April, 1980, and find that the number of votes given at each precinct and the
number of votes given in the City to persons voted for, the respective offices for
which said persons were candidates, were as follows:
GENEP~L MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 8, 1980
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL (TWO MEMBERS) FOR
'~ MAYOR
TOTAL
VOTES
PRECINCT ALLAN W. JIM BEN L. HOUSTON "HUGH" M. F. "MIKE" DON JOHN CAST AT
NUMBER LYNCH WEST BAY FAULKNER, JR. VALENTI ROTH SEYMOUR PRECINCT
1 18 26 78 8 25 79 88 126
2 10 19 46 3 13 41 55 71
3 19 37 112 5 15 128 141 171
4 30 15 92 3 14 94 111 133
5 27 37 104 4 24 115 118 165
6 35 42 127 6 28 142 162 201
7 31 41 113 2 30 111 128 i 178
8 22 21 99 8 22 99 113 145
9 43 35 107 10 25 103 136 170
10 25 32 63 17 27 75 93 126
11 25 35 70 5 15 76 83 124
I
12 14 16 38 5 10 35 45 61
13 10 12 81 2 13 85 82 109
14 17 32 73 20 13 82 101 127
15 23 52 121 7 20 128 146 186
16 31 56 135 10 28 134 156 210
17 34 30 97 8 22 76 113 139
18 22 39 107 3 21 96 112 154
19 32 65 121 17 30 123 156 205
80 -504
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 8, 1980
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL (TWO MEMBERS) FOR
MAYOR
TOTAL
VOTES
PRECINCT ALLAN W. JIM BEN L. HOUSTON "HUGH" M. F. "MIKE" DON JOHN iCAST AT
NUMBER LYNCH WEST BAY FAULKNER, JR. VALENTI ROTH SEYMOUR PRECINCT
20 40 112 140 10 36 136 180 247
21 29 40 118 3 18 127 133 170
22 11 23 93 4 15 75 95 120
23 14 16 34 2 10 34 43 58
24 20 26 85 6 11 106 111 139
25 17 27 38 4 12 40 57 75
26 19 18 57 4 19 71 84 100
27 21 33 82 6 20 87 96 143
28 22 68 151 7 23 1149 181 228
29 21 43 88 7 10 94 112 139
30 19 43 113 13 32 137 153 188
31 20 24 78 8 14 88 93 122
32 19 18 56 6 18 57 79 100
33 46 33 130 8 23 122 149 189
34 19 25 58 10 20 59 61 102
35 16 20 61 5 20 61 76 102
36 27 38 86 5 29 90 120 146
37 20 30 90 12 24 102 110 146
38 20 42 162 19 20 177 159 234
39 31 27 175 14 17 188 166 238
40 27 36 156 12 32 171 174 228
41 27 36 178 21 32 202 179 257
42 34 38 146 25 32 157 156 229
43 17 19 109 16 33 130 106 175
80-505
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 8, 1980
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL (TWO MEMBERS) FOR
MAYOR
TOTAL
VOTES
PRECINCT ALLAN W. JIM BEN L. HOUSTON "HUGH" M. F. "MIKE" DON JOHN $AST AT
NUMBER LYNCH WEST BAY FAULKNER, JR. VALENTI ROTH SEYMOUR PRECINCT
44 20 27 109 16 38 108 123 174
45 28 33 150 17 25 167 161 226
46 18 19 46 2 9 70 65 95
47 38 43 122 13 28 139 164 201
48 55 56 1621 21 22 183 205 266
49 45 68 148' 45 35 181 214 287
50 38' 52 113 14 33 132 148 201
51 21 15 52 12 17 64 75 103
52 83 30 47 37 44 61 85 162
53 23 46 97 7 29 112 132 166
54 12 31 50 4 32 59 70 103
55 12 46 62 3 25 83 82 121
56 31 71 155 23 24 201 195 264
57 16 36 111 10 14 129 130 165
58 38 57 106 13 26 128 147 195
59 17 16 44 4 12 60 65 85
60 24 23 46 7 17 63 68 97
61 19 30 113~ 7 22 121 129 162
62 10 19 65 2 6 81 74 94
63 19 24 22 6 17 39 55 74
64 - 6 7 1 4 10 12 15
65 23 16 16 3 8 22 33 47
66 17 13 51 5 6 51 59 72
67 18 31 46 7 17 47 62 84
80-506
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION - APRIL 8, 1980
FOR MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL (TWO MEMBERS) FOR
MAYOR
TOTAL
VOTES
PRECINCT ALLAN W. JIM BEN L. HOUSTON "HUGH" M. F. "MIKE" DON JOHN CAST AT
NUMBER LYNCH WEST BAY FAULKNER, JR. VALENTI ROTH SEYMOUR PRECINCT
68 48 53 41 9 24 50 82 1t9
69 20 42 79 8 24 72 100 132
70 18 51 66 5 20 64 90 124
71 16 30 49 2 25 53 70 96
72 8 5 15 4 12 25 35 39
73 17 43 53 5 29 50 71 105
74 20 31 45 7 12 53 61 89
75 17 20 30 4 13 34 41 64
76 23 20 41 7 23 51 65 86
ABSENTEE
VOTE 44 57 87 9 43 118 156 193
TOTAL
VOTES
CAST 1880 2637 6714 709 1650 7363 8336 11,182
80-5 07
City .Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - $cptcm. hcr !~, !98m_, 1:30 P.M.
Pursuant to said canvass, it was determined that candidates Don Roth and Ben
Bay received the highest number of votes cast and were elected members of the
City Council of maid City for the full term of four years, and that John Seymour
received the highest number of votes cast for Mayor and was elected Mayor for
the full term of two years.
Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No. 80R-156 for adoption. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-156: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, RECITING THE FACT OF THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION HELD IN SAID Ci~TY
ON APRIL 8, 1980, DECLARING THE RESULT THEREOF AND SUCH OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED
BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE CHARTER.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-156 duly passed and adopted.
OATH OF OFFICE: The. Oath of Allegiance for public office was administered by the
City Clerk to elected Council Members Don Roth, Ben Bay and Mayor John Seymour,
and they were presented with Certificates of Election.
Councilman Ben Bay expressed his thanks to all the people who helped during his
campaign. In looking at the election results by precincts, although the vote was
small, it was widespread and almost equal across those precincts. He was pleased
with the outcome of the election not only in his case, but also with that of
Councilman Roth. He hoped the action of retaining the Council would follow on
through the recall and that the other two Council Members would be retained as
well. He then introduced his family.
Councilman Roth also thanked those who contributed in one form or another to
his successful election campaign. He owed the election to his constituents and
the people who had faith in him and wanted him to be their representative for
the next four years. He ran his campaign on his record of the past four years
and promised not to let anyone down. He then introduced those members of his
family who were present in the Council Chamber as well as his business partner,
Mr. Gaylen Compton, and his assistant Mrs. Alma Ott.
Mayor Seymour added his congratulations to both of his colleagues. He was proud
that the people of Anaheim saw fit to return them to office. Once the recall
was settled in June, he felt at that point they would be "whole" again to meet
the great and exciting challenges they had before them. Particularly challenging
was the specter of Proposition 9, with the likelihood that they would face the
obligation of trying to responsibly implement whatever the will of the voters
might be, to continue on with the necessary expansion in the commercial/recreational
area and the Convention Center, to continue with the Redevelopment process, with
the delivery of what he considered to be the best in City services, particularly
80-508
qit~ Hall~ ~naheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, i:30 P.M.
in the fire and police areas, to continue with the expansion of the library system
and complete the new structure in the canyon, and to pursue electrical generation
in the election on June 3 hopefully in joining with the IPP. Because of the
challenges and items with which they would be faced, that was why he was so
eager to run for another term as Mayor. He looked forward to working with the
Council in meeting the challenges that faced their great City.
114: REORGANIZATION OF THE COUNCIL - MAYOR PRO TEM: In accordance with Council
Policy No. 111, this being the appropriate date and time, Councilman Seymour
nominated Councilman E. Llewellyn Overholt, Jr., as Mayor Pro Tem of the City.~
Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Councilman Seymour moved to close nominations for Mayor Pro Tem. Councilman
Bay seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Overholt was thereupon unanimously designated as Mayor Pro Tem.
MINUTES: Approval of minutes was deferred to the next regular meeting.
WAIVER OF READING - ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to
waive the reading in full of all ordinances and resolutions of the Agenda, after
reading of the title thereof by the City Clerk, and that consent to waiver is
hereby given by all Council Members, unless after reading of the title, specific
request is made by a Council Member for the reading of such ordinance or resolution
in regular order. Councilman Roth seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
FINANCIAL DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY in the amount of $1,383,747.82, in accordance
with the 1979-80 Budget, were approved.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL MOTION CONSENT CALENDAR: On motion by Councilman Roth,
seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the following actions were authorized as rec-
ommended:
a. 160: Bid No. 3638. 62 Marbelite Standards, City of Anaheim Design No. 736.
Award to General Electric Supply, $31,085.56.
b. 160: Bid No. 3637. 100-, 200- and 250-watt HPS Luminaries and Lamps.
Award to General Electric Company, $11,095.50, Item Nos. 1 through 3; and
award to General Electric Supply, $1,324.65, Item Nos. 4 through 6.
c. 160: Bid No. 3636. 12-inch Ductile Iron Pipe. Award to Pacific States
Cast Iron Pipe, in an amount not to exceed $56,881.67.
d. 150: Accepting an award in supplemental Title III-B Program Funds through
the Older Americans Act in the amount of $20,000 and appropriating these funds
into Program No. 17-816-7105, Senior Citizens' Center Improvements.
MOTION CARRIED.
80-509
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - LUMINARIES AND LAMPS - BID NO. 3639: Mayor Seymour
noted in report from the Purchasing Agent dated April 9, 1980 the statement,
"with the present City energy rate, the savings will be $1,338.96 per year." He
asked if that savings was the savings projected over the 144 units.
Mr. George Edwards, Electrical Superintendent, answered~"yes". They were going
to replace all 144 incandescent units with the subject luminaries and lamps.
They were obsolete units and this was in conjunction with the conversion program
the Council authorized last May. ~
Further questiOning and discussion followed between the Mayor and Mr.~Edwards in
which the Mayor expressed his concern relative to the cost effectiveness of
replacing lamps before they had burned out. Mr. Edwards explained that there
were two benefits in so doing, (1) the energy savings and (2) the inCreased
lighting that would be provided in areas where they received constant requests
from the community to approve the lighting.
The Mayor asked the City Manager to take another look as to whether the process
of replacement was cost effective. ~
By general consent, consideration of the subject request was continued one week.
160: PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT - OFFICE FURNITURE FOR CIVIC CENTER: Authorizing
the Purchasing Agent to issue a Purchase Order in the amount of $42,402.54, to
McMahan Desk, Inc. for office furniture in accordance with provisions of
Purchase Order No. K 04486-E.
Councilman Bay noted that in the report dated April 9, 1980 from the Purchasing
Agent, the statement, "unit prices reflect the current factory price, less 51%.
There was 67 chairs at approximately $201 each and if that was 51% of the
factory price, he assumed the wholesale price was approximately $400 each, which
would, in turn, mean that retail would be 35% above that. He wanted to know
what kind of $500 chairs the City was using.
Purchasing Agent Dick Jefferis stated he did not have the price structure at hand;
City Manager Talley thereupon withdrew the item until they were prepared to
respond to the question.
By general consent, consideration of the subject request was continued one week.
CITY MANAGER/DEPARTMENTAL RESOLUTION CONSENT CALENDAR: Councilwoman Kaywood
offered Resolution No. 80R-157 through 80R-159, both inclusive, for adoption
as recommended .
167: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-157: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
,ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL 'AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF
STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD AND WINSTON ROAD, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO
01-794-6325-4170. (Grissom & Johnson, Inc., $51,094)
80-510
City Hal.!~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - A. pril 15~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
164: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-158: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING A SEALED PROPOSAL AND AWARDING A CONTRACT TO THE LOWEST
RESPONSIBLE BIDDER FOR THE FURNISHING OF ALL PLANT, LABOR, SERVICES, MATERIALS
AND EQUIPMENT AND ALL UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INCLUDING POWER, FUEL AND
WATER, AND PERFORMING ALL WORK NECESSARY TO CONSTRUCT AND. COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT: BROOKHURST STREET STORM DRAIN, SEQUOIA STREET TO CRESCENT
AVENUE, IN THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 13-791-6325-1110. (G.. R. Frost,
Inc., $92,422)
i23: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-159: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 'OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM APPROVING A SUPPLEMENTAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA AND THE CITY OF ANAHEIM CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF IMPROVEMENT
OF HASTER STREET FROM KATELLA AVENUE TO ANAHEIM BOULEVARD, AND AUTHORIZING THE
MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT. (Caltrans District Agreement
No. 3204 S-i, $59,000)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and. Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-157 through 80R-159, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
103: FRONTERA NO. 3 ANNEXATION: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Resolution No.
80R-160 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 7, 1980 from the
Planning Department, requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to commence
proceedings for the annexation of certain uninhabited territory designated as
Frontera No. 3, consisting of approximately 8.96 acres located southeast of
the intersection of Glassell Street and the Riverside Freeway. Refer to
Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-160: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,.
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS FRONTERA NO. 3 ANNEXATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL Mtg~BERS:
couNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-160 duly passed and adopted.
103: RED GUM-CORONADO NO. 8 ANNEXATION: Councilman Bay offered Resolution
No. 80R-161 for adoption, as recommended in memorandum dated April 7, 1980 from
the Planning Department, requesting the Local Agency Formation Commission to
commence proceedings for the annexation of certain uninhabited territory des-
ignated as Red Gum-Coronado No. 8, consisting of approximately 18.73 acres lo-
cated north and south of Coronado Street, and east and west of Red Gum Street
Refer to Resolution Book. '
80-511
.City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-161: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM,
CALIFORNIA, REQUESTING THE COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN UNINHABITED TERRITORY DESIGNATED AS RED GUM - CORONADO NO. 8 ANNEXATION.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Rot~ and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-161 duly passed and adopted.
152/170: PLAN CHECKING BY PRIVATE CONSULTING ENGINEERS: City Manager William
Talley briefed the Council on memorandum dated April 8, 1980, from the City
Engineer, William Devitt, recommending that the City Council authorize the
City Engineer to approve agreements with private consulting engineers for plan
checking of record maps and improvement plans related to subdivision and land
development on an overflow basis.
Mayor Seymour commended the City Manager, Thornton Piersall, Public Works Executive
Director, and City Engineer William Devitt for putting together a very effective
program. It was a prime example of what could be done to increase housing totally
at the expense of private enterprise, and they were happy to pay for it.
On motion by Councilwoman Kaywood, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the City
Engineer was authorized to approve agreements w~th private consulting engineers
for plan checking of record maps and improvement plans related to subdivision
and land development on an overflow basis. MOTION CARRIED.
116: EXPANDED AUDIT PROGRAM: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Council-
man Overholt, the creation of an expanded Audit Program was authorized to include
both fiscal and performance audits, as recommended in memorandum dated April 9,
1980, from the Assistant City Manager, William T. Hopkins. MOTION CARRIED.
153: Councilman Overholt offered Resolution No. 80R-162 for adoption, as rec?
ommended in the subject memorandum, amending Resolution No. 79R-590, establishing
a new classification of General Auditor and rate of compensation therefor, effec-
tive April 11, 1980. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-162: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
A~NDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-590 WHICH ESTABLISHED RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR
CLASSES DESIGNATED AS PROGRAM MANAGERS.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-162 duly passed and adopted.
80-512
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
167: TRAFFIC SIGNAL ASSESSMENT FEE ADJUSTMENT: Mayor Seymour commented that
report dated April 8, 1980 from the City Engineer relative to the subject ad-
justment was an excellent one. He had no difficulty increasing fees when there
was consistent thinking relative to the cost to provide the services.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-163 for adoption, adopting a re-
vised Traffic Signal Assessment Fee schedule, reflecting a 13-percent increase.
Refer to Resolution Book. ~
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-163: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF,THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
DESIGNATING A REVISED FEE SCHEDULE FOR INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS.
Roll Call Vote: *
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MFAMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-163 duly passed and adopted.
159: REVIEW AND REVISION OF ENGINEERING FILINGs SERVICE AND PERMIT FEES: Mayor
Seymour referred to the extensive staff report dated February 14, 1980 from the
City Engineer. He asked the amount of additional income projected from the
changes and fees as compared to income one year ago.
Thornton Piersall, Public Works Executive Director, replied that they were projecting
$84,000 in additional income, or approximately a 39% increase. The reason for what
seemed to be a substantial increase was due to the fact that increases had not
taken place for two years and at this point they felt it to be a larger goal pro-
posal.
The Mayor stated he had no problem as long as what Mr. Piersall was saying was
(1) the City was competitive with other cities, and (2) they were under the
cost of the private sector. He reiterated, he had no problem with the increase
which was justified as confirmed by Mr. Piersall, but on the other hand, there
should be an offset somewhere else in the budget, otherwise they were realizing
a windfall. To that degree, he felt it was fair that it should be pointed out,
or they should be taking a look and indicate, for example, that they were going
to repair that many more chuckholes in the street because inflation over the
last two years was 25% and 39%.
Mr. Piersall explained what they were saying in the increase was that they were
finally reflecting their true cost.
A brief discussion followed between the Mayor, Councilman Bay and Mr. Talley
relative to the windfall aspect, wherein Mr. Talley confirmed that in relation
to the inflationary rate, the City would receive a modest windfall.
Councilman Roth stated he was not elated to see fees increase because ultimately
those costs were passed onto the consumer. In looking at the increase of 30% a
year or two ago, and then to have that compounded with an additional increase, he
felt they'were opening themselves up to the criticism that government was charging
extra fees to circumvent Proposition 13 which was meant to cut government costs.
80-513
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 19~0, 1:30 P.M.
Mayor Seymour stated that as long as the windfall aspects were taken care of,
they would not be rewarding someone else. This was pay-as-you-go, pay-as-you-
use basis and that was where the City Manager had been leading ~hem for the
past two years. He found himself to be consistent with that philosophy. How-
ever, he wanted tO see the windfall identified.
In concluding, Mr. Talley stated that he had no plans for any other major increases
in fees. However, he did not think the Council wanted them to hold back and the
subject fees had not been adjusted in two years. His theory was to keep bringing
those to the Council as they were identified and not save them up as long as
they did reflect the City's costs and they were not making any profit. He
would be happy to keep a windfall ledger as suggested.
The Mayor asked if he would submit a report relative to what represented windfall
in this case; Mr. Talley stated that would merely be the difference between the
general CPI and the amount of the increase.
On that basis, Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-164 for adoption,
as recommended in memorandum dated February 14, 1980 from the City Engineer,
establishing new filing service and permit fees charged by the Public Works
Department. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-164: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
ESTABLISHING FEES TO BE CHARGED BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Roth stated he was going to support the
resolution with great reluctance.
Mr. Piersall clarified it would cost more for private development to do the
same.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-164 duly passed and adopted.
174: suPPORTING REDUCTIONS IN FEDERAL PROGRAMS: City Manager Talley stated
that staff would like the Council to provide them with more direction, not
only their position on General Revenue Sharing, but also the position the
Council wished them to adopt in communicating with the City's Congressional
representatives on general budgetary items and programming.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-165 for adoption, supporting a
reduction in Federal programs as long as Federal programs were reduced by
Congress in like amounts and percentages. Refer to Resolution Book.
80-514
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-164: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
SUPPORTING A REDUCTION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS IF ALL FEDERAL PROGRAMS ARE REDUCED
IN A LIKE PERCENTAGE (EXCLUDING DEFENSE BUDGETS).
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated if, in fact, they believed that the
Federal budget had gotten totally out of line and contributed the most to the
hyper-inflation existing today, they must be prepared to "bite the bullet" of
accepting reductions along with every other level of government. Therefore,
rather than asking for Federal money, they should advise their elected officials
that they were prepared to accept Federal prog~ram reductions, provide~ the
Federal government w~s prepared to make similar decisions relative to other
Federal programs and not Just isolate Federal Revenue Sharing, for example,
or Federal Housing programs from which the City benefitted. Philosophically,
he had a difficult time condemning the Federal government for not reducing
expenditures, while at the same time asking them to give the same as last year
and perhaps more. He believed the only way the Federal government would reduce
the budget was by taking it across the board. The people were going to have to
take it into their own hands by amending the Federal Constitution through the
initiative process.
Councilman Roth stated his concern with the Mayor's resolution lay in the fact
that it would affect defense spending in the country and he would never encour-
age an across-the-board reduction of defense spending and to try and tie it in
with Section 8 Housing or other subsidized programs.
The Mayor stated that without threatening defense spending, if the Federal
government was prepared to do nothing more than spend 2% less the remainder of
the fiscal year and 2% less next year, the inflation rate would be cut by approx-
imately 8%, there would be one million new Jobs in the country, interest rates
on housing would recede by some 4% to 6%, etc. Those were the types of things
that could happen, going just that far. He was not talking about massive cuts.
Councilman Overholt stated he had the same problem as Councilman Roth relative
to including defense spending in an across-the-board move. The defense budget
was probably the most important part of the Federal budget and to take such an
approach including the defense budget, would seem to be running the country with
blinders. If the Mayor could some way exclude the impact of the words, "like
amount", as it might apply to a defense budget, he could support the resolution
100%. He did not believe a defense budget could be set on the basis of formula
or balanced welfare budget programs against defense budgets. He could not rec-
ommend across-the-board percentage cuts that would impact the defense budget.
The Mayor thereupon amended his resolution to exclude the defense budget.
Councilman Bay stated that he supported the defense budget. However, he felt it
was difficult when submitting a resolution trying to get the City's representatives
to take a certain path to start excluding certain things. If they started
dealing with all those variations rather than concentrating on telling their
Federal representatives that they wanted the Federal budget cut primarily because
inflation was affecting every citizen in the country, that might not be as effec-
tive.
The Mayor asked if the resolution passed, was the Council prepared to carry it to
the League of Cities and ask for their support; the consensus was affirmative.
80-515
~ity Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - ~pril 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that she would like to see a report on how such
action might affect the City's budget, if the report could be accomplished
without a great deal of expense. ~
The Mayor stated he did not know how staff could do that because they had no
idea, if any, of the magnitude of the cuts proposed.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that was part of the problem, they were constantly
dealing with unknowns. Although she was with the spirit of the philosophy of
the resolution, she had not seen anybody stop asking for anything while also
not wanting to cut anything.
Before concluding, Councilman Overholt wanted to clarify his remarks so that
they would not be misinterpreted. He wished that they did not have to have
any defense budget.
The Mayor thereupon clarified his resolution as supporting a reduction of Federal
programs in like amounts, with the exclusion of the defense spending; resolution
to be submitted to and seeking the support of the League of Cities, both Orange
County and National; U. S. Conference of Mayors; and the City's legislative
representatives.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing resolution.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-165 duly passed and adopted.
123: TIME SHARING SERVICES - R. W. BECK AND ASSOCIATES: On motion by Councilman
Overholt, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, a contract with R. W. Beck was author-
ized for time sharing services to access and utilize their resource and financial
planning computer programs, as recommended in memorandum dated April 4, 1980 from
the Public Utilities Board. MOTION CARRIED.
123: INCREASED RATES FOR THE LAW FIRM OF SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID: Public Utilities
General Manager Gordon Hoyt clarified questions posed by Mayor Seymour and Council-
man Bay relative to the subject rates proposed to be charged by Spiegel &
McDiarmid, effective July 1, 1980, as outlined in memorandum dated April 10,
1980 from the Public Utilities Board.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-166 for adoption, as recommended
by the Public Utilties Board. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-166: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A THIRD AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
· CITY OF ANAHEIM AND SPIEGEL & MC DIARMID, AND AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES
GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID AMENDMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM.
80-516
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:~ None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-166 duly passed and adopted.
123: ORANGE COUNTY PRO SOCCER DBA CALIFORNIA SURF - INSURANCE COMPANY SELECTION:
On motion by Councilman Overholt, seconded by Councilman Roth, the Surf contract
was amended providing that the Surf shall have the right to select an insurance
company, subject to City approval, as recommended in memorandum dated April 15,1
1980 from the City Attorney's office. MOTION CARRIED.
105: APPOINTMENTS TO THE ANAHEIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BOARD OF
DIRECTORS: Councilwoman Kaywood nominated Mr. George Kilichek to serve on the
subject Board for the term ending June 30, 1982.
Councilman Bay nominated Mr. Fred Bercher to serve on the subject board for the
term ending June 30, 1980.
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman Overholt, nominations were
closed. MOTION CARRIED.
Thereupon Mr. Kilichek and Mr. Bercher were unanimously appointed to serve on
the Board of Directors of the AEDC for 'the terms specified.
RECESS: By general consent the Council recessed for 10 minutes. (2:55 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Se)~our called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (3:05 P.M.)
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1923: Application by
Frederick R. and Ruth E. Sacher, to consider amendments to conditions of approval,
to permit sales of home furnishings on ML zoned property located at 1040 Kraemer
Place, (continued from the meeting of March 18, 1980, at the request of the
applicant's attorney).
A negative declaration status on the subject project was previously granted on
May 15, 1979 (see minutes that date) at which time the Council denied CUP No. 1923
by Resolution No. 79R-276. A rehearing was held on October 16, 1979 at which
time the Council granted CUP No. 1923 subject to additional conditions (see minutes
that date) and in accordance with the CPC recommendations (79R-597), and amended
on December 4, 1979 (see minutes that date). At the meeting of February 26, 1980,
Mr. Floyd Farano requested a hearing to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1923 and
public hearing was set for March 18, 1980 and continued to this date.
Mr. Floyd Farano, 2555 East Chapman, Fullerton, attorney for the applicant, stated
the purpose of the request for a rehearing was ~o remove Condition No. 8 of CUP
No. 1923 as follows: Condition No. 8--"That said conditional use permit is granted
for a maximum period of three (3) years only; further provided that said permit
will be reviewed at the end of the first year of operation to establish that not
less than fifty percent (50%) of all sales were wholesale in nature; and will be
80-517
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
further reviewed at the end of the second year of operation to establish that not
less than seventy percent (70%) of all sales for said period were wholesale in
nature." They were requesting that the condition be modified to eliminate the
wholesale requirements and also the time period involved. They were requesting
permission for uses which would not encroach upon the industrial uses, over-
load traffic or otherwise interfere with health, safety and welfare of the City,
and that they would not be setting a precedent in an area already having 90%
commercial uses.
Mr. Farano, working from a diagram, then reviewed for the Council the uses that
were involved in the Sacher property. There were five businesses at one time
engaged in retail sales of household furnishings. Presently, Orange County
Furniture Gallery was no longer in business. Mooney Carpets was now located
just to the west of the present property. Curtis Furniture had gone out of
business in that location.~ The premises were about 90% vacant a week ago, and
he understood they were entirely vacant at this point in time and no business
had been done at the Curtis Furniture location for approximately one week. The
last day of the going-out-of-business sale was April 4, 1980. Ron's Bars and
Stools was still on the premises as well as H & R Johnson, the latter having
only a negligible retail sales program. Approximately 50,000 to 60,000 sqaure
feet of space on the property was now empty.
The reason they were asking for consideration was due to the fact that the
owners of the property were finding a great deal of difficulty in leasing
because no one was interested, considering the conditions presently existing
and the property had become tainted. In his meeting with 39 industrialists in
the area, only two or three had not heard of the controversy involved in the
property and their reactions and comments were not flattering relative to the
situation. (See minutes March 25, 1980 reporting on the results of the survey
of 39 industrialists). He pointed out again that 90% of the area from La Palma
south to the Riverside Freeway from Kraemer to White Star was presently dedicated
to commercial retail uses or uses which were retail or commercial oriented towards
bringing in the public on a daily basis. He then relayed some of the uses in the
area including the Cathy Rigby Gymnastics Academy approved October 16, 1979 (see
minutes that date) which hearing took place immediately following CUP No. 1923
and granted the restricting uses he was talking about. Mr. Sacher's property
comprised of approximately 8.3% of the total area, making it 98% of the entire
area and less than 10% of that portion of the property already dedicated to and
being used for commercial purposes.
Mr. Farano then referred to previous presentations where he gave extensive expla-
nations relative to various methods of merchandising recognizing the fact that
new types of businesses were emerging, one of which being the retail sales of
furniture requiring large spaces in terms of indoor buildings. He then recounted
much of the testimony given at the meeting of October 16, 1979 which was contained
in a 13-page presentation already made a part of the record and which included
traffic counts in the area and in the parking lot showing the very low incidence
of traffic generated from the property. (Also see "Quasi-commercial Uses in
The Industrial Area" submitted at the meeting of March 25, 1980--made a part of
the record).
80-518
.City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Mr. Farano again referred to the survey of 39 industrialists who were all asked
if the businesses on the five acres of the subject property created any kind of
burden whatsoever on their business. In 37 cases, the answer was "no". One did
not like the signs and banners and if that were cleaned up, they would have no
objection. The other felt the impact of traffic to the industrial area would
not be favorable.
Mk. Farano then stated that he felt a lot of the problems that were created
were due to a specific tenant on the property. The Sachers had no disagree-
ment with the City relative to the abuses or anything that existed, and they
were in the same situation as the City in that regard. Any tenant who would
be leasing the property as a matter of the lease terms would have to abide by
the terms of the CUP and if they violated the CUP, they would, in turn, be
violating the lease.
In concluding, he stated the economics of the situation were different now and
the property had changed and it was a lot cleaner. He also asked Mr. Bill Lee,
the present leasing agent, to speak to the matter.
CoUncilman Bay asked if in the survey there was any question asked if the indus-
trialists thought that allowing commercial in the area would cause an increase
of more commercial in that industrial area; Mr. Farano answered that they did
not ask that specific question.
Councilman Roth asked if the vacancy factor had more to do with the design of
the building, or the cost factor, commercial being higher than industrial.
Mr. Farano stated having seen the inside of all the buildings, he would say
that the conversion for the use of the buildings by industry would not create
any hardship. However, unless someone could have an unencumbered way to go into
the building and use it, they were not interested.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if somebody wanted to come in with an industrial use,
would that be a problem.
b~. Farano stated that he did not know that it would. He did not think the
Sachers would turn down such a use but he questioned what industrial use would
want to locate on the property with commercial all around it.
Mr. Bill Lee, 33422 Cockleshell, Laguna Niguel, President of Lee & Associates,
commercial real estate firm, stated relative to the leasing activity and lack
of tenants, the prior agent ran into the problem where the developer, when he
developed the si~e, determined that the highest and best use for that property,
because of the traffic, was one that would cater to identity, and when he built
the buildings in his master plan, did not plan for a large amount of distribu-
tion use or outside storage use. Thus, the owner was limited to the type of
tenant he could have and attract to those properties, and that was the reA1 nautre
of the problem.
At the request of Councilman Bay, Mr. Lee then discussed at length differences
between the rates for the leasing of commercial square footage and industrial
square footage. He pointed to the locations of many buildings in the area ex-
plaining that the rates for leasing varied, dependent on factors such as high
80-519
~i~% Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
exposure, amenities, etc. The main point was that there was not a lot of diff-
erence in rates between a building oriented toward a high identity user. The
reason a developer would decide to build that kind of building was due to the
fact that he felt it would lease quicker, the competition was great and thus
it was a matter of economics.
In concluding, Mr. Farano stated that Mr. Sacher had been the victim of a number
of circumstances not of his making. With the nature of the property, the net
effect to do otherwise than grant the request would almost be discrimination
against Mr. Sacher. He felt it could be done without any damage or hindrance
to the industrial area.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that one of the questions asked was that by having
the use in that particular area was it going to lead to a proliferation of other
similar type uses. Mr. Lee had pointed to a block inward from the subject pro-
perty on the corner of Miraloma and Kraemer, indicating that there were others
now building with the same type of window space and asking for a conditional use
permit.
Mr. Farano stated he was not convinced in any way that the Sacher property and
the property Mr. Lee discussed had any cause and effect. If anything, if would
cause someone to think twice or discourage them from going into such development.
There was a distinct difference between the area Mr. Sacher was in and the area
north on Kraemer. He felt that the area under discussion warranted a General
Plan Amendment change.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilman Bay recalled that the conditional use permit was granted prior to the
passage of the current zoning ordinance, and he asked the City Attorney if they
took, or attempted to take, action now to reduce the conditions to the point of
allowing certain types of commercial operations on the CUP, would such action
be violating the ordinance presently in force.
City Attorney William Hopkins stated the ordinance that Councilman Bay referred
to was the one indicating commercial sales businesses primarily compatible with
industrial customers and that was passed in October of 1979. The resolution
approving the CUP was passed in December. In view of the fact that there was
an existing CUP and they were at this time merely considering modifying it, he
did not think that that would be violating the ordinance, but a modification of
the existing resolution previously approved.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT - NEGATIVE DECLARATION: On motion by Councilman
Seymour, seconded by Councilman Overholt, the negative declaration status of the
subject project was reaffirmed by the City Council. MOTION CARRIED.
Councilman Seymour offered Resolution No. 80R-167 for adoption, eliminating
Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 79R-597. Refer to Resolution Book.
RESOLUTION NO. 80R-167: A RESOLUTION OF THE CItY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT OF CONDITIONS IN CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO. 1923,
AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 79R-597 AND REPEALING RESOLUTIONS NO. 79R-706 AND 79R-707.
80-520
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before any action was taken, the Mayor stated that they had long discussed the
merits and demerits of what would take place in that particular area. He felt
he did not need to repeat the arguments he made before. If they were to follow
through with the island concept which the majority of the Council adopted (see
minutes March 25, 1980), nothing was being given away, violated or changed in
this case with regard to the spirit of the majority's will.
City Attorney Hopkins asked that Condition No. 6 of Resolution No. 79R-707 be
deleted as well, because it would not be consistent with the action taken; the
Mayor included that in his resolution.
Councilman Bay stated he would speak against the resolution based on the fact
that when the Council voted on the island concept, they, in effect, did not
vote on an island concept. They voted to have the City Attorney prepare an
ordinance for an island concept that was to be processed through the Planning
Commission, staff and the details of it worked out again at a workshop and sub-
sequently to come back to the Council for a final decision on what changes would
be made in reference to the island concept, if any, at that time. He would argue
that if the resolution as stated passed, it would predetermine the outcome of
that action to the extent that they would be saying they were creating this one
now by CUP regardless of what would come through the study process, Planning
Commission, staff or the workshop.
Councilman Bay thereupon moved to continue consideration of the subject CUP until
after the studies were in and a decision made on the island concept in the indus-
trial area. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, the Mayor stated he would speak against the motion to
continue. He felt the tactics were merely one of attempting to postpone and
twist the intent of the majority of the Council as it voted on March 25, 1980
when the matter of encroachment in the industrial area was before the Council.
The intent of the motion was much more specific than was just articulated. What
he (S~ymour) said was that there would be no more debate as to the direction
they were going to take. They were going to take an island concept direction,
no longer to debate the purity theory. If so, the action to be taken was no
predetermination. The property was in the very heart of that island surrounded
by 90% similar uses. Thus, to infer that the island concept was something that
perhaps they were studying or did not intend to employ was incorrect and to say
it was a predetermination was to distort what was taking place. He would vote
against the motion to continue.
Councilwoman Kay-wood asked if in eliminating Condition No. 8, was the Mayor setting
a boundary as to the uses existing there.
Mayor Seymour stated he did not intend in asking for approval of the resolution
to do anything other than approve the retail furniture use as set forth in
the CUP on that specific property and nothing more.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked how that would affect what was coming in on the next
corner right in the middle of industrial at La Palma and Kraemer as pointed out
by Mr. Lee.
80-521
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
The Mayor answered that he supposed that had to await the study of the Planning
Commission and Council as far as further adoption of the island concept.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the property was the heart of the island or was
that the island?' The M~yor replied that he did not think that was the island,
but the entire area around the intersection was the island. Where that would
be defined would take some study and recommendation. They had previously
approved CUP's creating retail commercial sales on 90% of the property sur-
rounding the subject parcel. The intent of the previous action was to create
an island concept and to study that and then take the illegal uses and one by
one, through the CUP process, deal with those uses, while at the same time
giving the assurance that the industrialists were looking for at the meeting of
March 25, 1980 by drawing a line and setting the rules of the game.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that the line continually seemed to move around. She
asked if the Mayor was saying that the line was La Palma; the Mayor clarified
it was this particular property only.
A vote was first taken on the motion for continuance. Councilmen Overholt, Rd~h
and Seymour voted "no". The motion failed to carry.
A vote was then taken on the resolution amending Conditional Use Permit No. 1923,
to eliminate Condition No. 8 of Resolution No. 79R-597 and Item No. 6 of Resolution
No. 79R-707.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Roth and Seymour
Kaywood and Bay
None
The Mayor declared Resolution No. 80R-]67 duly passed and adopted.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2039 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION:
Applination by Kenny Golf Enterprises, Inc., to permit a water slide on RS-A-43,000
zoned property located at 3200 Carpenter Avenue--Camelot Miniature Golf Course,
(continued from the meeting of January 2, 1980 at the request of the applicant's
attorney).
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC79-228 declared that
the subject project be exempt from the requirement to prepare an environmental
impact report pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act since there would be no significant individual or cumulative adverse environ-
mental impact due to this project and further denied Conditional Use Permit No.
2039.
The decision of the Planning Commission was appealed by Kenny Golf Enterprises,
Inc., and public hearing scheduled January 2, 1980 and continued to this date.~
Miss Santalahti described the location and surrounding land uses. She outlined
the findings given in the staff report which was submitted to and considered by
the City Planning Commission.
80-522
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
If Council considered the application favorably, she also requested an additional
condition to those contained in the staff report, that being specifically that
a minimum 12-foot high visual buffer consisting of landscaping and/or fencing
be installed to obscure the water slide from the Riverside Freeway, subject to
the approval of the Planning Department and Caltrans.
The Mayor asked if the applicant or applicant's agent was present and desirous
of being heard.
Mr. Fred Kenny, Kenny Family Group, owners and operators of Camelot Miniature
Golf Course, explained that during the period of continuance, they had used the
time to revise some of their site plans. He then gave a slide presentation
consisting of slides of the property at present wherein Mr. Kenny emphasized
the wholesomeness and cleanliness of the present operation and that they would
also run the proposed water slide operation in the same manner. He also referred
to the packet of material previously submitted to the Council and noted that
one of the supporting letters was received before the Planning Commission meeting.
They were rushed as they approached that hearing and thus were not able to con-
tact some of the other people in time for them to submit letters. Control Data
responded favorably and wished them success, as well as Kilroy Industries and
Bryan Industries.
Relative to the letter from Mr. Carl Sator of Sterling Business Center, located
on the other side of the Anaheim Recreation Center, prior to the Planning
Commission meeting they had no idea he had any problems that might be related
to Camelot. He mentioned that people were cutting through his property and
causing problems. They had since worked out some solutions with Mr. Sator, and
he had subsequently given them a letter wishing them success in their proposal.
They-intended to make the water slide facilities first class and good for the
citizens of Anaheim. The industries in their area were supportive, and they had
seen the proposals and the renderings.
Mr. Kenny then clarified for Councilman Overholt that the photograph in the
booklet submitted showing the Camelot facility taken from across the freeway
was one that contained an artist's rendering of the water slide as it would be
located on the property. He also confirmed for Councilman Bay that the water
slide was not in the originally proposed location, but moved back 170 feet as
depicted, its height being 55 feet and the width 90 feet.
Councilman Roth asked for clarification from Mr. Kenny if they~had objected to
the Anaheim Recreation Center when that project was initially proposed.
Mr. Kenny replied that they had written the letter as to their reasons for ob-
Jection, some of them being their uses were different than Camelot--batting
cages, trapolines, race cars--and they felt at that time (1975) those type
uses would attract a rougher element and would not be as attractive as the
green, landscaped hills of the miniature golf course. They were not established
in that area, they were not as bad as had first been thought, and they had not
had much of a problem with them.
Councilman Roth asked Mr. Kenny if he had gone through the Chamber of Commerce;
Mr. Kenny stated they had talked to Mr. Sierk and he was interested in what the
lndustrialtsts in the area thought about the proposal. When they showed Mr. Sierk
the letters, he was pleased.
80-523
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.Mo
Mr. Kenny then explained how the water slide would work, its visibility from
the freeway, etc. (explanation contained in the Planning Commission hearing
minutes of December 3, 1979).
Councilman Overholt asked what they planned to use for the 12-foot buffer; Mr.
Kenny explained that many things could be done such as planting Italian Cypress
in rows, installing a fence--something that would be attractive and it would not
present a problem. Caltrans requested that a fence or some type of buffer be
installed, and they (Kenny Enterprises) subsequently wrote a letter stating that
they would construct the needed screening.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if Caltrans had any objection at this time; Miss
Santalahti stated they had not contacted Caltrans subsequent to the Planning
Commission meeting, but they had previously indicated a willingness to discuss
some kind of obscuring material. They would contact Caltrans to obtain their
views on the matter.
Councilman. Roth asked in their projections to make the water slide feasible, how
many people would use the facility Monday through Friday. He was concerned
with the effect traffic would have on the industrial area.
Mr. Kenny explained that'in a count made at other water slides, usage was heavyr
from i0:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., with 75 to 100 people at a time. In the industrial
area, traffic was heaviest when work let out. At those times their business was
quite light, especially with miniature golf, and the same would be true of the
water slide. Those uses did not draw a great number of people or traffic at
one time. The traffic was spread out.
The Mayor asked if anyone wished to speak in opposition to the proposed project;
no one was present.
Mr. James Hewish, San Juan Capistrano, stated he was speaking in favor. He and
his brother owned Anaheim Recreation Center adjacent to Camelot. He was present
in 1972 when the miniature golf course was approved and in 1975 when the Anaheim
Recreation Center was approved. They were going to develop the vacant land that
was shown on one of Mr. Kenny's slides. They felt they were doing a good job in
the area as well. They also had a recreation center on the San Diego Freeway in
Fountain Valley where they had seventeen acres of land and had just received an
approval for a water slide which they were going to build at that location. They
felt in the "old days" a miniature golf course or batting cage could stand by
itself, but today that was not true. To be more successful, they needed more rec-
reational amenities and thus, they approved of Mr. Kenny's request for a water
slide. He reiterated, they were going to further develop their'property and
that it would be an ideal recreation area for the people of Anaheim. They were
planning an outdoor roller skating rink, possibly a cart-o-rama and a racquet-
ball club. If they could get permission from the City, they had more land which
they would be developing in the future. They had 7.1 acres and had approximatel~
4½ acres left to develop. Upon request, he then showed his plans to the Council
for their edification and stated he was going to apply for his building permits
in 15 minutes.
80-524
City Ha.ll, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April'15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth asked staff if they had heard from the AEDC on the project;
Miss Santalahti answered that they had not.
There being no further persons who wished to speak, the Mayor closed the public
hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if the other person who objected to the project was
still objecting.
Miss Santalahti stated she did not have any information to the contrary.
Mr. Kenny stated that the other person was a Mr. Dale Fowler and they had worked
with him. He expressed no objections and would support the proposal but would
not be present at the meeting today.
Mayor Seymour asked if there was anything from the Police Department relative to
the subject area being a place for young people to "hang out".
Mr. Hewish answered that they had six locations throughout Southern California
and they had a problem in Pomona which they could not solve. Finally they in-
stalled a six-foot fence along the front of their property and that solved about
50% to 60% of the problem. They then charged $1 for cars to enter and the $1
was returned when they played golf. All of their new locations were designed
with that in mind. The kids would ultimately get tired of the street and go
away. He assumed if the slide was built they would do the same thing on their
property, charge to come in. The young people wanted to get on the parking lot,
sit and talk, turn the music up, and drink.
Councilwoman Kaywood asked if such a problem existed on their parking lot at
present.
Mr. Hewish answered that they had a minor problem but their manager would go out
and talk to the kids. They could only control the problem on their property
because they could not control the streets.
Mr. Kenny also stated that they had a minor problem, but they had a security guard
in their parking lot on Friday and Saturday nights. They had a policy of no
alcoholic beverages, racing and no loitering in the parking lot.
The Mayor asked if staff had any information on the situation; Miss Santalahti
answered "no".
Councilman Bay stated he would speak against the CUP on the basis that he would
surmise that a great deal of traffic coming into the area, particularly for a
water slide, would appear somewhere around the time school was out, other than
the summer months, and that time would coincide with one of the big traffic
times in the industrial area, between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. He further considered
that this type of extensive development did not belong in the industrial area
and neither did great crowds of children. He felt it would not only have a
traffic impact on the area, but also a further development impact that would
enlarge the problem until it became one that would impede industrial development
in the area.
80-525
City Hall, Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Councilman Roth wanted to know how he would respond to the letters from the
industrial owners in the area and especially Mr. Kilroy, all in support of the
project.
Councilman Bay stated he did not know how many buildings Kilroy owned in the
area, but he knew that many had been sold off. He could not answer the question
other than perhaps if Kilroy Industries felt there was enough activity in the
area in commercial, he would get more money for his land.
The Mayor stated he had no objection relative to the particular use, but it
concerned him relative to the magnitude of the development that was coming at
them to now take an action without taking a look first as to what the next st~p
might be. He was not certain he could go with that. Rather than deny or approve
the CUP today, he preferred to delay the matter until they knew specifically
where they were going. It appeared that there was not a consensus amongst the
industrialists and time would permit them to see if there was a cohesiveness of
opinion.
MOTION: Councilman Seymour moved to continue public hearing on Conditional Use
Permit No. 2039 for six weeks, May 27, 1980, at 3:00 pom. Councilman Roth
seconded the motion.
Before a vote was taken, Councilman Overholt stated he would be glad to support
the motion. In view of the discussion about the youth in the area, they should
have reports from the Police Department. The projected expansion could bring
problems even the proprietors could not solve.
Councilman Roth stated between now and six weeks he felt it important to check
the remarks of Mr. Farano. He would also like to see a questionnaire prepared
and mailed out to some of the people in the industrial area, not only to the
landowners, but also to those utilizing that land, to see if they could obtain
input from those industrialists as to whether they objected to commercial uses,
as well as the water slide, and also their opinion relative to the island concept.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated she voted against the miniature golf course when it
came before the Planning Commismion initially and she had to commend the Kennys
on the way they laid their project out. She was impressed with the slides; the
Mayor noted that he too voted against it when he was on the Planning Commission.
A vote was then taken on the motion for continuance. MOTION CARRIED.
162: TRAILS COMMITTEE - THIRD ANNUAL BENEFIT TRAIL RIDE AND HIKE - ANAHEIM HILLS:
On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilwoman Kaywood, the City Council
endorsed the subject ride and barbeque to be held Sunday, April 20, 1980, as re-
quested in letter of April 1, 1980, from the Chairman of the Riding and Hiking
Trails Committee, Horst Schor, in order to allow the proceeds from the event to
be tax exempt. MOTION CARRIED.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: On motion by Councilman Roth, seconded by Councilman
~Overholt, the following actions were authorized in accordance with the reports and
recommendations furnished each Council Member and as listed on the Consent
Calendar Agenda:
80-526
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
1. 118: CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY: The following claims were denied and referred
to the City's Claims Administrator:
a. Claim submitted by'Steven Wayne Moyer for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of accident involving City-owned vehicle (street sweeper)
at the intersection of South and Dakota Streets, on or about January 18, 1980.
~b. Claim submitted by Christopher W. Currier for personal injury damages purpor-
tedly sustained as a result of vehicle going off roadway due to lack of signs,
highway markings, barricades or reflectors designating end of road, eastbound
~on La Palma Avenue, 330 feet east of Jenifer Drive, on or about December 25, 1979.
'c. Claim submitted by David W. Mountain for personal injury damages purportedly
sustained as a result of vehicle going off roadway due to lack of signs, barricades
~or reflectors warning of road ending, eastbound on La Palma Avenue, 330 feet east
of Jenifer Drive, on or about December 25, 1979.
d. Claim submitted by Carl Tortoro for damages to property purportedly sustained
as a result of mud sliding caused by elevation of service road which hampered
drainage during rainstorm, on or about March 6, 1980.
e. Claim submitted by Pete Stevenson, for minor Timothy Stevenson, for personal
injury damages purportedly sustained as a result of vehicle going off roadway
due to failure to provide warning or barrier on La Palma at or near Jenifer Drive,
on or about December 25, 1979.
2. CORRESPONDENCE: The following correspondence was ordered received and filed:
a. 107: Planning Department, Building Division--Monthly Report for March 1980.
b. 105: Anaheim Housing Commission--Minutes of March 5, 1980.
c. 175: Before. the Public Utilities Commission, Application No. 50564, Southern
California Edison Company, for authority to modify its Conservation Load Management
Adjustment Clause to include a balancing account and to increase its Conservation
Load Management Adjustment Billing Factors to recover increased expenditures made
towards the development and testing of conservation and load management programs.
d. 105: Community Redevelopment Commission--Minutes of March 19 and 26, 1980.
e. 105: Community Center Authority--Minutes of April 7, 1980.
3. 164: RIGHT OF WAY CERTIFICATION--LA PALMA AVENUE~ SEQUOIA AVENUE TO MAGNOLIA
AVENUE: In accordance with the recommendations of the City Engineer, right of
way certification for the La Palma Avenue from Sequoia Avenue to Magnolia Avenue
project, for the construction of a master planned storm drain and widening, re-
construction and resurfacing of the street roadway was approved. (FAU NO. M-L073)
MOTION CARRIED.
80-527
City Hall~ Anaheim, California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS: Councilman Roth offered Resolution Nos. 80R-168
through 80R-170, both inclusive, for adoption in accordance with the reports,
recommendations and certifications furnished each Council Member and as listed
on the Consent Calendar Agenda. Refer to Resolution Book.
158: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-168: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM ACCEPTING CERTAIN DEEDS AND ORDERING THEIR RECORDATION. (American
National Properties, Inc.; Villa Vista Development Corporation)
169: RESOLUTION NO. 80R-169: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE
THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, TO WIT: PERALTA HILLS
STREET IMPROVEMENT, IN R~E CITY OF ANAHEIM, ACCOUNT NO. 12-793-6325-3340; APPROVING
THE DESIGNS, PLANS, PROFILES, DRAWINGS, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION OF SAID PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SAID PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, ETC.; AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY
CLERK TO PUBLISH A NOTICE INVITING SEALED PROPOSALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
THEREOF. (Bids to be opened May 15, 1980 at 2:00 P.M.)
RESOLUTION NO, 80R-170: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM
TERMINATING ALL PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1628
AND DECLARING ~ESOLUTION NO. 76R-495 NULL AND VOID.
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Resolution Nos. 80R-168 through 80R-170, both inclusive, duly
passed and adopted.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: The following actions taken by the City Planning
Commission at their meeting held March 24, 1980, pertaining to the following
applications, as listed on the Consent Calendar, were submitted for City Council
information.
i. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-26: Submitted by Philip F. Porretta and Emily
Porretta, for a change in zone from RS-A-43,000 to RM-2400, to construct an
8-unit apartment building on property located at 700 South Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-52, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-26, and granted a negative declaration status.
2. RECLASSIFICATION NO. 79-80-32: Submitted by Pargas of Anaheim, Inc., for a
change in zone from CG and RS-7200 to CO, to construct an office building on
property located on the west side of Harbor Boulevard, north of the centerline
of Romneya Drive.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-53, granted
Reclassification No. 79-80-32, and granted a negative declaration status.
80-528
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
3. VARIANCE NO. 3140: Submitted by Rock K. and Linda M. Bradford, to construct
a room and garage addition on RS-7200 zoned property located at 1005 West Sycamore
Street, with various Code waivers.
TheeCity Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-58, granted Variance
No. 3140, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
4. VARIANCE NO. 3142: Submitted by Frank Donald and Linda Lee Ashleigh, to
construct two tennis courts on RS-HS-43,000 zoned property located at 101Strada
Place and 110 Belleza Lane, with a Code waiver of minimum structural setback.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-59, granted Variance
No. 3142, and ratified the Planning Director's categorical exemption determination.
5. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2056: Submitted by Michael J. Crucil and Walter
Shook, to retain an existing contractor's storage yard on ML zoned property
located at 2920 East La Jolla Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-54, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2056, and granted a negative declaration status.
6. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2063: Submitted by Woodward R. and Eunice L.
Archer, et al, to retain an automobile restoration shop on ML zoned property
located at 1180 North Blue Gum Street.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution NO. PC80-55, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2063, and granted a negative declaration status.
7. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2064: Submitted by Priscilo and Pilar C. Panganiban,
to expand an existing guest home on RS-7200 zoned property located at 804 North
Magnolia Avenue.
The City Planning Commission, pursuant to Resolution No. PC80-56, granted Con-
ditional Use Permit No. 2064, and granted a negative declaration status.
8. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1969 - EXTENSION OF TIME: Submitted by Nemax,
Inc., requesting an extension of time to Conditional Use Permit No. 1969, to
retain a van conversion facility on ML zoned property locate at 1832 East Ball
Road.
The City Planning Commission approved an extension of time to Conditional Use
Permit No. 1969, to expire April 9, 1981.
No action was taken on the foregoing items by the City Council, therefore the
actions of the City Planning Commission became final.
ORDINANCE NO. 4117 AND 4118: Councilman Seymour offered Ordinance No. 4117 and
4118 for adoption. Refer to Ordinance Book.
142/127: ORDINANCE NO. 4117: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
SECTION 1.12.090 OF CHAPTER 1.12, TITLE 1, OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RE-
LATING TO ELECTION PROCEDURES. (candidate's filing fee)
80-529
City Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15~ 1980, 1:30 P.M.
124: ORDINANCE NO. 4118: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ANAHEIM AMENDING AND APPROVING AS SO AMENDED ORDINANCE NO. 3966 OF SAID CITY
COUNCIL, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF COMMUNITY CENTER AUTHORITY REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES D, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION
AND FINANCING OF ADDITIONS TO THE ANAHEIM CONVENTION CENTER FACILITY, AND DES-
IGNATING THE ANTICIPATED SOURCES OF REVENUE THAT WILL BE PLEDGED TO SECURE SAID
REVENUE BONDS. (Betterment II)
Roll Call Vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Overholt, Kaywood, Bay, Roth and Seymour
None
None
The Mayor declared Ordinance No. 4117 and 4118 duly passed and adopted.
ORDINANCE NO. 4119 AND 4120: Councilwoman Kaywood offered Ordinance No. 4119
and 4120 for first reading.
142/149: ORDINANCE NO. 4119: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING
TITLE 14, CHAPTER 14.32, SECTION 14.32.152 OF THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE BY
ADDING THERETO SUBSECTION .070 RELATING TO TWO-HOUR PARKING RESTRICTIONS.
(relating to two-hour parking restrictions on the E/S of Blue Gum Street, from
210 feet S/O Coronado Street to La Palma Avenue, and the W/S, from Coronado Street
to Blue Gum Way)
ORDINANCE NO. 4120: AN~ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ANAHEIM AMENDING TITLE 18 OF
THE ANAHEIM MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ZONING. (72-73-51(40), RS-HS-22,000)
114: CALIFORNIA ANGELS OPENING DAYLU~CHEON: Councilman Overholt reported on
the California Angels opening day luncheon, h~ld Thursday, April 10, 1980 at
the Convention Center. He commended the Chamber of Commerce on the outstanding
job they had done. Everybody was enthused about the Stadium and its expansion.
He reiterated that it was an outstanding event.
155: A-1 LIMOUSINE SERVICE: Councilwoman Kaywood reported that'she was contin-
ually besieged with calls from the area of Knott Avenue and Brady Street and she
asked to have a hearing set for Home Occupation Permit No. 79-433 issued to the
0sb0rnes for offiCes for a limousine service at 1406 South Knott. On January 22,
1980 (see minutes that date) the Council denied Conditional Use Permit No. 2041
because it was a commercial business. They now appeared to be running that same
commercial business without benefit of a CUP, and she wanted notices sent to
everyone residing within 300 feet relative to the hearing.
Councilman Roth suggested rather than setting a hearing, that the Enforcement
Officer be sent to the location.
Councilwoman Kaywood stated that he had been sent out and it seemed that most
of the activity was now taking place on weekends and evenings when the officer
was not avialable.
Councilman Roth felt if there was a violation of the HOP, the person responsible
to bring it into line would be the Enforcement Officer or to have him make a rec-
ommendation to revoke the permit.
80-5 30
C~ty ~all, Anaheim, California'- COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1.5~ 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss Santalahti explained that one of the complaints had been on the amount of
traffic in the area. When they sent an officer out, nothing happened when he
was there. They were at a standstill as far as staff was concerned. What
happened in other neighborhoods, nobody was willing to testify if the matter
went to courtl
Councilwoman Kaywood moved to have notices sent on order to show cause why Home
Occupation Permit No. 79-433 should not be revoked. Councilman Bay seconded
the motion for the purpose of discussion.
Before any action was taken, Councilman Overho!t stated that he too had received
calls relative to the situation and thereupon asked how much enforcement activity
had taken place.
Miss Santalahti explained when someone called to complain, the inspectors would
go out. The things the neighbors were objecting to had to do with traffic--cars
going in and out and people on the premises who appeared to be drivers, but they
could be friends. They had gone to the location and found no driver on the
premises. They had not observed anything that was in violation of the Zoning
Code or the HOP.
Councilman Overholt stated he had the same concern as Councilman Roth. If the
Enforcement Officer was unable to get evidence, to hold a hearing with citizens
to testify and subsequently having Mr. Osborne deny any charges, theY would be in
the same position as before. He asked if there was any way to beef-up the
enforcement based upon information the citizens could give, to determine if the
complaints were legitimate.
Miss Santalahti stated that they could send a letter to Mr. Osborne commenting on
the types of complaints received, o
Councilman Overholt felt that was a good idea. The complaints he received were
very specific as to time, how many people and how many cars. They needed more
evidence and at this moment they had none.
Councilwoman Kaywood was concerned that if a letter was sent, Mr. Osborne would
immediately take steps to continue his activities by becoming even more secretive.
The Mayor expressed his concern in bringing Mr. Osborne to a hearing now and
on what they had, remove his HOP. He could subsequently bring the matter to
court and test the City because there was not enough evidence to justify re-
voking the permit. Councilman Overholt was suggesting that time be allowed to
perform a proper investigation. If so, they would then have good grounds for
an order to show cause hearing.
Councilwoman Kaywood noted that inasmuch as staff issued HOP's, they could
technically also revoke them without a hearing; Miss Santalahti confirmed that
was correct, but they had every right to appeal to the City Council.
Councilman Bay asked if the present HOP allowed the storage of limousines on
the property.
80-531
City Hall~ Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 1.5, 1980~ 1:30 P.M.
Miss~Santalahti replied that it did not address vehicles of that type and
limousines and vans were common vehicles that other people also owned.
Councilman Bay stated he was getting calls as well. If the residents of that
area were that concerned over what they considered a limousine operation being
conducted in their residential area under a Home Occupation Permit, but were not
concerned enough to swear out a complaint, he was not certain he was concerned
enough to hear it. He wanted to see some evidence. The City should do everything
possible relative to enforcement, although he realized there was a limit to what
could be done.
Councilman Overholt stated that since staff had the power to revoke the permit
and they did not feel they had sufficient evidence at the present time, it
seemed that a shouting match would not solve a great deal.
C~uncilwoman Kaywood asked if there was sufficient cause to revoke the permit on
behalf of staff.
· Miss Santalahti answered that staff had not observed the violations directly.
If they had a Code section that actually said the business could only have one
commercial vehicle on the premises, they would then have a reason to revoke.
Admittedly, in this case, there was more than one vehicle on the premises.
Councilman Roth recommended that staff investigate and submit a report relative
to Compliance with the HOP.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion to set a hearing for order to show
cause. Councilmen Overholt, Bay, Roth and Seymour voted "no". The motion failed
to carry.
148: VACANCY ON ORANGE COUNTY HEALTH PLANNING COUNCIL: Councilwoman 'Kaywood
reported that with a vacancy existing on the subject Council for a delegate and
alternate they should be considering appointments to fill those two positions.
She suggested that they be prepared to make those appointments in two weeks.
149: LACK OF PARKING - JACKSON DRUGS: Councilman Roth reported that he had
received a telephone call from Mr. Don Lee, owner of Jackson Drugs, who was
very concerned and unhappy. The City sometime back without notifying Mr. Lee
or anyone authorized the striping of the new parking lot behind the drug store.
Thirty-nine yellow Spaces were painted for the seniors visiting the senior
citizens complex; ten green spaces for seniors living in the project, and
eighteen white spaces for anybody who could use them. Jackson Drugs opened
at 8:45 a.m. and when Mr. Lee arrived at the store, all the white stalls were
filled and the citizens and the vehicles did not move during the day. Whoever
was using the lot would take the free-for-all spaces first and leave the ten
green and 39 yellow. Customers would call Mr. Lee and indicate that they
wanted to come trade with him, but they could not find a parking space. Council-
man Roth emphasized that he felt it important to try to help the few remaining
businessmen in the downtown area.
MOTION: Councilman Roth moved to have a number of 30-minute parking spaces
available in that parking lot to cause a rotation of parking in order to assist
Mr. Lee. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion for the purpose of discussion.
80-532
Cit~ Hall, Anaheim~ California - COUNCIL MINUTES - April 15, 1980, 1:30 P.M.
Before action was taken, it was decided that four spaces be so designated.
Councilman Bay noted that on February 19, 1980 (see minutes that date) they
discussed and approved parking signs on Lincoln with a one-hour limit (see
Ordinance No. 4103--one hour parking--9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.), thereby resolving
the parking problem on Lincoln as articulated including those expressed by Mr.
Lee at that time. He did not understand why the senior citizens parking lot
was now part of the problem that they previously resolved.
Councilman Roth stated it did not resolve the problem; City Engineer William
Devitt explained that they had not been able to install the signs as yet because
of the 30=day waiting period before the ordinance went into effect.
Councilman Bay was of the opinion if the Council took action as proposed, the
whole senior citizens group would be in the Chamber relative to the parking ~
problems associated with that lot.
After further discussion between Council and staff, the motion was clarified
as follows: that four, 30-minute parking spaces be provided immediately in
the rear parking lot of the senior citizens complex.
A vote was then taken on the foregoing motion. Councilman Bay voted "no".
Councilwoman Kaywood abstained. MOTION CARRIED.
126: ACCESS PROBLEM: Mayor Seymour stated it was his understanding that there
was a problem at the Traveland Trailer Park, 333 West Ball. Road, with a large
amount of ticketing taking place relative to access, both ingress and egress.
He asked the Traffic Engineer to submit a brief report to the Council on that
situation.
RECESS - EXECUTIVE SESSION: Councilwoman Kaywood moved to recess into
EXecUtive Session. Councilman Overholt seconded the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
(5:36 P.M.)
AFTER RECESS: Mayor Seymour called the meeting to order, all Council Members
being present. (6:22 P.M.)
ADJOURNMENT: Councilman Bay moved to adjourn. Councilwoman Kaywood seconded
the motion. MOTION CARRIED.
Adjourned: 6:22 P.M.
LINDA D. ROBERTS, CITY CLERK